不同绿藻对模拟酸雨胁迫的生理生化响应特征

doi:10.11978/2022243

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以东海潮间带绿藻优势种为试验材料, 测定其最大光化学量子产量(maximal photochemical quantum yield of PSⅡ, F_v/F_m)、可溶性糖含量及抗氧化酶活性等指标, 研究不同强度模拟酸雨(pH分别为6.3、5.6、4.5、4.0、3.5)胁迫下绿藻优势种生理生化响应。结果表明: 1) 随着模拟酸雨酸度和处理时间增加, 2种浒苔、4种石莼、史氏刚毛藻和刺松藻的F_v/F_m抑制幅度增大; 2) pH 4.5的模拟酸雨降低藻体中叶绿素a、类胡萝卜素和可溶性糖含量, 降幅为浒苔>石莼>刺松藻>史氏刚毛藻。而可溶性蛋白含量有所增加, 且随时间延长愈加显著, 史氏刚毛藻增幅高于其他绿藻。3) pH 4.5的模拟酸雨抑制绿藻中超氧化物歧化酶(superoxide dismutase, SOD)、过氧化氢酶(catalase, CAT)活性, 但提高其过氧化物酶(peroxidase, POD)活性, 且处理时间与POD活性正相关, 与SOD、CAT活性负相关。研究表明pH 4.5能作为模拟酸雨胁迫潮间带绿藻优势种的试验条件, 史氏刚毛藻对模拟酸雨耐受性最佳, 石莼比浒苔具有更好的抗酸雨胁迫能力。

关键词: 绿藻, 模拟酸雨, 优势种, 生理生化响应, 东海

Abstract:

The maximal photochemical quantum yield of PSⅡ (F_v/F_m), soluble sugar contents and antioxidant enzyme activity were determined by using dominant species of chlorophyta in the intertidal zone of the East China Sea. The physiological and biochemical responses of dominant species of chlorophyta under simulated acid rain (pH 6.3, 5.6, 4.5, 4.0, 3.5, respectively) were studied. The results showed that: 1) the simulated acid rain inhibited F_v/F_m of Ulva prolifera and Ulva intestinalis, the remaining green seaweeds of Ulva, Cladophora stimpsonii and Codium fragile, and the inhibition amplitude increased with the increase of acidity and treatment time; 2) simulated acid rain at pH 4.5 reduced the contents of chlorophyll a, carotenoids and soluble sugar, and the decrease amplitude was green seaweeds of Ulva > C. fragile > C. stimpsonii. but the contents of soluble protein increased, which became more significant as time went on, and the increase amplitude of C. stimpsonii was higher than that of other green seaweeds; 3) simulated acid rain at pH 4.5 inhibited the activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT), but increased the activities of peroxidase (POD) of seaweeds, and the treatment time was positively correlated with the activities of POD, but negatively correlated with the activities of SOD and CAT. In summary, pH 4.5 can be used as physiological and biochemical test conditions for dominant species of chlorophyta to simulated acid rain stress, C. stimpsonii exhibited higher tolerance to simulated acid rain, compared with U. prolifera and U. intestinalis, the remaining green seaweeds of Ulva has higher tolerance to simulated acid rain.

Key words: chlorophyta, simulated acid rain, dominant species, physiological and biochemical response, East China Sea

杜响, 骆其君, 陈海敏. 不同绿藻对模拟酸雨胁迫的生理生化响应特征[J]. 热带海洋学报, 2023, 42(5): 115-123.

DU Xiang, LUO Qijun, CHEN Haimin. Physiological and biochemical responses of different species of chlorophyta to simulated acid rain stress[J]. Journal of Tropical Oceanography, 2023, 42(5): 115-123.

图/表 7

图1

图2

表1

表2

图3

图4

图5

参考文献 31

[1]	卞雅姣, 黄洁, 孙其松, 等, 2013. 模拟酸雨对小麦产量及籽粒蛋白质和淀粉含量及组分的影响[J]. 生态学报, 33(15): 4623-4630.
	BIAN YAJIAO, HUANG JIE, SUN QISONG, et al, 2013. Effects of different acidity acid rain on yield, protein and starch content and components in two wheat cultivars[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 33(15): 4623-4630 (in Chinese with English abstract). doi: 10.5846/stxb
[2]	丁兰平, 栾日孝, 2013. 中国海藻志: 第四卷绿藻门(第一册)[M]. 北京: 科学出版社: 44- 69, 135-137.
	DING LANPING, LUAN RIXIAO, 2013. Flora algarum marinarum: Tomus Ⅳ Chlorophyta (NO. 1)[M]. Beijing: Science Press: 44-68, 135-137 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[3]	姜芳燕, 杨宁, 菅盼盼, 等, 2018. 基于 rbcL 和 tufA 基因的石莼和浒苔系统发育分析[J]. 基因组学与应用生物学, 37(7): 228-234.
	JIANG FANGYAN, YANG NING, JIAN PANPAN, et al, 2018. Phylogenetic analysis of Ulva sp. and Enteromorpha sp. based on rbcL and tufA Gene[J]. Genomics and Applied Biology, 37(7): 228-234 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[4]	李合生, 2000. 植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社: 182- 186, 194-203.
	LI HESHENG, 2000. Principles and techniques of plant physiological biochemical experiment[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press: 182-186, 194-203 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[5]	李信书, 徐军田, 何培民, 2011. 干燥和模拟酸雨胁迫对条斑紫菜光合作用的影响[J]. 水产科学, 30(5): 260-264.
	LI XINSHU, XU JUNTIAN, HE PEIMIN, 2011. Photosynthesis characteristics in laver porphyra yezoensis: Responses to desiccation and simulated acid rain[J]. Fisheries Science, 30(5): 260-264 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[6]	连纲, 罗涛, 傅智慧, 等, 2021. 2001—2018 年浙江省酸雨变化特征及影响因素分析[J]. 中国环境监测, 37(4): 104-110.
	LIAN GANG, LUO TAO, FU ZHIHUI, et al, 2021. Analysis on tempo-Spatial variation characteristics and influence factors of acid Rain in Zhejiang Province from 2001 to 2018[J]. Environmental Monitoring in China, 37(4): 104-110 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[7]	廖源林, 蔡仕珍, 叶充, 等, 2015. 模拟酸雨对苦楝生理生态特性的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 34(10): 2764-2770.
	LIAO YUANLIN, CAI SHIZHEN, YE CHONG, et al, 2015. Effects of simulated acid rain on ecophysiological characteristics of Melia azedarach[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 34(10): 2764-2770 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[8]	刘华, 吴国荣, 周耀民, 等, 2003. 模拟酸雨引起水体 pH 下降导致 Zn 对金鱼藻的毒害[J]. 环境科学学报, 23(4): 525-529.
	LIU HUA, WU GUORONG, ZHOU YAOMIN, et al, 2003. Effects of Zn toxicity on Ceratophyllum demersum L under low pH value[J]. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 23(4): 525-529 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[9]	宁波市生态环境局, 2022. 2021年宁波市生态环境状况公报[N]. 宁波日报, 2022-06-05(004).
	NINGBO MUNICIPAL BUREAU OF ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, 2022. 2021 Ningbo ecological environment status bulletin[N]. Ningbo Daily, 2022-06-05(004) (in Chinese with English abstract).
[10]	齐泽民, 王玄德, 宋光煜, 2004. 酸雨对植物影响的研究进展[J]. 世界科技研究与发展, 26(2): 36-41.
	QI ZEMIN, WANG XUANDE, SONG GUANGYU, 2004. The research progress of the effect of acid rain on plant[J]. World Sci-Tech Research & Development, 26(2): 36-41 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[11]	水德聚, 王晓艳, 邵勤, 等, 2016. 模拟酸雨胁迫对油冬菜生理特性的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 47(7): 1155-1158.
	SHUI DEJU, WANG XIAOYAN, SHAO QIN, et al, 2016. Effects of simulated acid rain stress on physiological characteristics of Brassica chinensis L.[J]. Journal of Southern Agriculture, 47(7): 1155-1158 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[12]	万文琴, 杜响, 秦欣, 等, 2022. 坛紫菜对干出和酸雨胁迫的生理响应[J]. 宁波大学学报(理工版), 35(2): 1-7.
	WAN WENQIN, DU XIANG, QIN XIN, et al, 2022. Physiological response of Pyropia haitanensis to dry-out and acid rain stress[J]. Journal of Ningbo University (Natural Science & Engineering), 35(2): 1-7 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[13]	王春燕, 2017. 不同模拟酸雨不同处理方式对华重楼生理特性的影响[D]. 成都: 四川师范大学.
	WANG CHUNYAN, 2017. Effects of different modes of different acid rain on physiological characteristics of Paris polyphylla var. chinensis[D]. Chengdu: Sichuan Normal University (in Chinese with English abstract).
[14]	王文彦, 2020. 模拟酸雨对玉米种子萌发和幼苗生长的影响[J]. 东北农业科学, 45(1): 21-24, 78.
	WANG WENYAN, 2020. Effects of simulated acid rain on seed germination and seedling growth of maize[J]. Journal of Northeast Agricultural Sciences, 45(1): 21-24, 78 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[15]	王自发, 高超, 谢付莹, 2007. 中国酸雨模式研究回顾与所面临的挑战[J]. 自然杂志, 29(2): 78-82.
	WANG ZIFA, GAO CHAO, XIE FUYING, 2007. Modeling studies of acid rain in China: progress and challenge[J]. Chinese Journal of Nature, 29(2): 78-82 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[16]	徐德才, 1995. 酸雨污染与防治: 浙江区域酸雨趋势与防治对策[J]. 能源环境保护, 9(4): 25-28.
	XU DECAI, 1995. Contamination and prevention of acid rain: the current of acid rain and prevention countermeasure in Zhejiang Province[J]. Energy Environmental Protection, 9(4): 25-28 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[17]	徐晓婷, 李亚鹤, 王东, 等, 2016. 低盐胁迫下模拟酸雨对裂片石莼光合作用生理特性的影响[J]. 水产学报, 40(5): 731-739.
	XU XIAOTING, LI YAHE, WANG DONG, et al, 2016. Effects of simulated acid rain on the photosynthetic physiological characteristics in Ulva fasciata under salt stress[J]. Journal of Fisheries of China, 40(5): 731-739 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[18]	张银, 李文杰, 李玲丽, 等, 2020. 模拟酸雨对3种红豆杉幼苗生理指标的影响[J]. 西部林业科学, 49(1): 120-127.
	ZHANG YIN, LI WENJIE, LI LINGLI, et al, 2020. Effects of simulated acid rain on physiological indexes of three species of Taxus seedlings[J]. Journal of West China Forestry Science, 49(1): 120-127 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[19]	张志良, 瞿伟菁, 2003. 植物生理学实验指导[M]. 第3版. 北京: 高等教育出版社: 121-127, 268-270.
	ZHANG ZHILIANG, QU WEIJING, 2003. Plant physiology experiment[M]. Third edition. Beijing: Higher Education Press: 121-127, 268-270 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[20]	赵会杰, 邹琦, 于振文, 2000. 叶绿素荧光分析技术及其在植物光合机理研究中的应用[J]. 河南农业大学学报, 34(3): 248-251.
	ZHAO HUIJIE, ZOU QI, YU ZHENWEN, 2000. Chlorophyll fluoresence analysis technique and its application to photosynthesis of plant[J]. Journal of Henan Agricultural University, 34(3): 248-251 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[21]	周原也, 易晓芹, 周跃斌, 等, 2019. 模拟酸雨对茶树叶片光合色素含量及光合作用 CO₂ 响应的影响[J]. 分子植物育种, 17(21): 7201-7206.
	ZHOU YUANYE, YI XIAOQIN, ZHOU YUEBIN, et al, 2019. Effects of simulated acid rain on photosynthetic pigment content and photosynthetic CO₂ response of tea leaves[J]. Molecular Plant Breeding, 17(21): 7201-7206 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[22]	DU ENZAI, DONG DAN, ZENG XUETONG, et al, 2017. Direct effect of acid rain on leaf chlorophyll content of terrestrial plants in China[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 605-606: 764-769. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.044
[23]	GAO SHAN, SUN QINGHAI, TAO YUELIANG, et al, 2016. A decline in macro-algae species resulting in the overwhelming prevalence of Corallina species is caused by low-pH seawater induced by short-term acid rain[J]. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 475: 144-153. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2015.11.019
[24]	HAYDEN H S, BLOMSTER J, MAGGS C A, et al, 2003. Linnaeus was right all along: Ulva and Enteromorpha are not distinct genera[J]. European Journal of Phycology, 38(3): 277-294. doi: 10.1080/1364253031000136321
[25]	HEUER B, 2003. Influence of exogenous application of proline and glycinebetaine on growth of salt-stressed tomato plants[J]. Plant Science, 165(4): 693-699. doi: 10.1016/S0168-9452(03)00222-X
[26]	LI YAHE, WANG DONG, XU XIAOTING, et al, 2017. Physiological responses of a green algae (Ulva prolifera) exposed to simulated acid rain and decreased salinity[J]. Photosynthetica, 55(4): 623-629. doi: 10.1007/s11099-017-0689-0
[27]	MORAN R, 1982. Formulae for determination of chlorophyllous pigments extracted with N,N-dimethylformamide[J]. Plant physiology, 69(6): 1376-1381. doi: 10.1104/pp.69.6.1376
[28]	PARSONS T R, STRICKLAND J D H, 1963. Discussion of spectrophotometric determination of marine-plant pigments, with revised equations far ascertaining chlorophylls and carotenoids[J]. Journal of Marine Research, 21(3): 155-163.
[29]	PORRA R J, 2002. The chequered history of the development and use of simultaneous equations for the accurate determination of chlorophylls a and b[J]. Photosynthesis research, 73(1-3): 149-156. doi: 10.1023/A:1020470224740
[30]	SCHREIBER U, GADEMANN R, RALPH P J, et al, 1997. Assessment of photosynthetic performance of prochloron in Lissoclinum patella in hospite by chlorophyll fluorescence measurements[J]. Plant and Cell Physiology, 38(8): 945-951. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pcp.a029256
[31]	ZHONG Z, QIN S, WANG Y, et al, 2020. Low pH in simulated acid rain promotes the toxicity of copper on the physiological performance in Sargassum horneri[J]. Photosynthetica, 58(3): 853-861. doi: 10.32615/ps.2020.035

绿藻种类	0min	30min	60min	120min	240min	360min
浒苔	0.735±0.005 ^a	0.728±0.010^a	0.678±0.018^ab	0.627±0.060^bc	0.545±0.001^c	0.446±0.010^d
肠浒苔	0.479±0.005^a	0.416±0.014^b	0.401±0.017^bc	0.370±0.007^bc	0.356±0.022^cd	0.312±0.021^d
石莼	0.735±0.053^a	0.733±0.021^a	0.714±0.007^ab	0.642±0.078^abc	0.549±0.029^bc	0.525±0.066^c
长石莼	0.678±0.024^a	0.674±0.039^a	0.660±0.020^ab	0.634±0.021^ab	0.578±0.023^b	0.479±0.034^c
孔石莼	0.698±0.011^a	0.702±0.032^a	0.687±0.036^a	0.664±0.012^a	0.578±0.003^b	0.514±0.011^b
蛎菜	0.512±0.009^a	0.477±0.010^ab	0.444±0.034^ab	0.420±0.012^ab	0.410±0.008^ab	0.366±0.093^b
史氏刚毛藻	0.671±0.033^a	0.672±0.012^a	0.636±0.051^a	0.616±0.009^a	0.574±0.003^ab	0.505±0.039^b
刺松藻	0.675±0.009^a	0.671±0.014^a	0.660±0.018^a	0.646±0.006^a	0.586±0.016^b	0.499±0.016^c

绿藻种类	0min	30min	60min	120min	240min	360min
浒苔	0.444±0.017^a	0.442±0.028^ab	0.402±0.008^ab	0.377±0.031^b	0.303±0.021^c	0.281±0.002^c
肠浒苔	0.347±0.006^a	0.313±0.008^ab	0.305±0.012^b	0.284±0.008^bc	0.265±0.004^cd	0.228±0.021^d
石莼	0.470±0.033^a	0.475±0.002^a	0.450±0.019^a	0.421±0.051^ab	0.385±0.042^ab	0.332±0.033^b
长石莼	0.217±0.013^a	0.212±0.003^ab	0.188±0.012^bc	0.171±0.006^cd	0.155±0.003^d	0.147±0.009^d
孔石莼	0.567±0.031^a	0.541±0.001^ab	0.551±0.001^ab	0.508±0.003^b	0.448±0.001^c	0.406±0.007^c
蛎菜	0.284±0.017^a	0.274±0.011^a	0.270±0.001^a	0.249±0.002^a	0.233±0.014^a	0.212±0.053^a
史氏刚毛藻	0.396±0.041^a	0.392±0.009^a	0.388±0.008^ab	0.372±0.017^ab	0.365±0.022^ab	0.313±0.026^b
刺松藻	0.406±0.002^a	0.400±0.005^a	0.388±0.033^ab	0.361±0.007^ab	0.341±0.009^bc	0.302±0.006^c